Topband: ARRL and FCC view of 160M

[Ford Peterson]

I would bet that the real reason for the ARRL's lack of interest in segmentation is far less sinister than some on this reflector are advocating.  It is no secret that the ARRL is very careful to 'request' anything of the FCC when they KNOW the FCC is unwilling to administrate.  I suspect the real reason for no restructuring of the official band segmentation is more akin to the FCC being unwilling to administrate the other band segments, much less allowing the introduction of segmentation of 160M.  

Having casually reviewed Riley's monthly enforcement activities--great entertainment actually--I have yet to see anybody get officially chastised for willfully ignoring the segmentation of the other bands.  You occassionally hear of OOs sending notices for inside band edge violations, etc., but never a letter from Riley threatening to pull somebody's ticket.  Why?  Because the FCC does not want to enforce inter-band non-sense.  As long as we stay within 1.8 to 2.0 MHz, 3.5 to 4.0 MHz, etc., they could care less.  And they certainly don't want any additional administrative headaches than they have right now.

Although Tom-W8JI presented some information about the ARRL's attitude 40 years ago, has anybody actually queried their director recently?  Instead of demonizing people at the ARRL, has anybody asked K1ZZ what he thinks about segmentation?  I find the hateful comments about the IMPUTED opinions of people in charge at the ARRL to be quite offensive and nothing more than trolling the "I hate the ARRL" mantra.  In an absense of solid evidence to the contrary, I have to believe there are good reasons for non-segmentation of 160M, which go well beyond our "wish list."  

Ford-N0FP
ford at cmgate.com